From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849EF60B8C for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:57:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707929873; cv=none; b=EVriLI9vUIp+Lub/zGLBMmWdvyCiNUMTvUTSElCLHZsK/16no0w7ddgbcaQDpiU/6G9VeKRzEnQIcS7vMlM27nrZSQ2ilXC+9Dz5AbvrwV5s33dewIljD4xH0vIuXJPtKwxA8w79QEiyQLEvg984yrTCzBAqM6iObLCdhDXLHkA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707929873; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Zckh61M7Zf0ACfZnriskhGOt2r2mXXRLevGvjWVXNzc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=o6ZzGeiLSnyxu+EIahpi0Y+DAZ+j6gY/+F559z719cjc/imrmv6ZWDPLHXPUtY5khLc3v7sgNjOFc345ob2dlpps189Zf3TJVVLI2rHVwpN7d87i6xF/7A0VXRmgfwRMIEAVKhs35/YEa34Xe5t3/MNUFpJv2jTCBDJEubK1BuU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=jzQRkPsk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="jzQRkPsk" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42B522393; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:57:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Zckh61M7Zf0ACfZnriskhGOt2r2mXXRLevGvjW VXNzc=; b=jzQRkPskSTmmCF0ePoQpIwKHvaszrTd+hbYGeSzfkHRIcsiIOgrSFz 1dYjJsPnnMvNG+XTYx09GoBQiH1J52HklhB0bk+fYl4t1u8ClrEPVuk365UJ3V8H HulOODDF/c56fAsVNhhdVn+faBrg4T3BUw73waN2U4E6Ydr6TvaQU= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFE922392; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:57:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.165.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 836F422391; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:57:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Ghanshyam Thakkar" Cc: Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2024, #05; Tue, 13) In-Reply-To: (Ghanshyam Thakkar's message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:38:31 +0530") References: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:57:47 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2EAB4A8E-CB5A-11EE-8393-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com "Ghanshyam Thakkar" writes: > I see that it is already in 'next'. However, I have rerolled it for a > single line change. If find it is worth it, here it is: > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240213000601.520731-2-shyamthakkar001@gmail.com/ The usual procedure is that once a topic hits 'next', it gets improved only by piling incremental updates on top with explanation. The idea is: if all of us thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for 'next', yet we later find there was something we all missed, that is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this case we are fixing." Unless it turns out that the approach was fundamentally wrong and such an incremental update boils down to almost reverting the earlier one entirely and replacing it with the newer one. In such a case, we do revert the earlier and replace it with the newer, in 'next'. But as the development community members work across timezones on their own pace, mails cross and mistakes happen. I've reverted the merge of the previous one from 'next' and queued the new one (I do not recall offhand if the updated one is already in 'next', though). Thanks.